| |||||||||||||
gstreamer decodersgstreamer decodersPosted Jan 31, 2010 11:55 UTC (Sun) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141)In reply to: gstreamer decoders by Trelane Parent article: Blizzard: HTML5 video and H.264 - what history tells us and why we're standing with the web
> Also, I'd like to take this moment to thank Fluendo for providing a
> licensed method.
A company is thanked for providing proprietary software. This must be a precedent on lwn.net. Anyway, you could have said that you don't care about free software right at the start. That would have saved us going back and forth about the finer points.
(Log in to post comments)
gstreamer decoders Posted Jan 31, 2010 13:21 UTC (Sun) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Given his earlier actions in poking MPEG LA with a stick, apparently in
the hope they'd wake up and say 'ffmpeg? what's that? stop, now!', I think his not caring about free software goes without saying. Or, rather, given a choice between free software and his being right, his being right would come first every time.
(apologies for sexist phrasing, but this particular odious characteristic
gstreamer decoders Posted Jan 31, 2010 20:37 UTC (Sun) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link]
"Given his earlier actions in poking MPEG LA with a stick, apparently in
the hope they'd wake up and say 'ffmpeg? what's that? stop, now!', I think his not caring about free software goes without saying."
It wasn't poking with a stick, your assumptions about my motivation are completely off the mark, and your conclusion based on the above is also completely wrong. Fortunately, I don't have to prove myself to random jerks on the Internet.
"Or, rather, given a choice between free software and his being right, his being right would come first every time."
Also incorrect. Not surprising. I think your own prejudices color your perceptions here.
gstreamer decoders Posted Feb 1, 2010 0:45 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Well, what was I supposed to think? If your supposition that ffmpeg had
been ignored by the MPEG LA because they were beneath their notice had proven correct, your own actions would have done nothing less than bring another patent attack on free software. Well done.
gstreamer decoders Posted Feb 1, 2010 1:09 UTC (Mon) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link]
That was never my supposition. Perhaps you are thinking of
" Posted Jan 26, 2010 21:32 UTC (Tue) by roc (subscriber, #30627) [Link] I guess they're not important enough to be sued by MPEG-LA. "
All I did was ask for clarification on their FAQ. At worst, I hastened the inevitable by some unknowable quantity. At best, my email has helped show better where the licensing necessities are.
gstreamer decoders Posted Feb 1, 2010 1:14 UTC (Mon) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link]
ugh. my thinking with a screaming baby ain't the clearest. at best would have been a fairytale ending of "GPL implementation is OK with us!" at worst i've improved our (or just my) knowledge of the licensing situation at the cost of *perhaps* hastening the inevitable by some unknowable quantity.
gstreamer decoders Posted Feb 4, 2010 0:30 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Screaming baby explains everything, I think. Rationality is not expected
under those circumstances. (Sanity is hard enough to maintain.)
gstreamer decoders Posted Feb 1, 2010 16:04 UTC (Mon) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]
So you're a fan of security through obscurity nix? I'm surprised.
I don't see a downside to getting everything into the open. It might mean some short term difficulty for the ffmpeg project (difficulty that I'm sure they're expecting anyway), but it means long-term stability for everybody.
Nice work Trelane. You're doing this for all of us. Thanks!
gstreamer decoders Posted Feb 1, 2010 16:36 UTC (Mon) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link]
It still wasn't my intent to get anyone in trouble. Let's be clear on that point. I was solely looking for information (and if they'd said "Oh, we never thought of that! GPL is a great license, and you totally can consider yourselves covered!" or something like that, that'd've been great. As it is, we now know a bit more about implementations they don't care about making pay (see the thresholds I asked to be clarified.) And we have it in writing (as much as email is; I do have logs too))
It's also the start of a dialog, if they choose to go there. I'd be willing to talk with them about Free Software and patents and direct them at more knowledgeable people. Let's try to keep this positive!
legal trouble Posted Feb 2, 2010 15:29 UTC (Tue) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link]
For some reason people keep expecting trouble for us and expecting that we expect trouble. We have had zero trouble in the 10 odd years of our existence and are firmly convinced that we will see the same amount of trouble in the next decade. See also
gstreamer decoders Posted Feb 4, 2010 1:14 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
The law and security have the same relationship to each other as theology
has to religion: that is, none to speak of.
gstreamer decoders Posted Jan 31, 2010 23:25 UTC (Sun) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link]
Quit worrying about FFmpeg keeping a low profile. We're not a secret to any of the players in the industry and not to the MPEG LA.
gstreamer decoders Posted Feb 1, 2010 0:52 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Oh I'm not worrying. I entirely believe you: ffmpeg is too influential for
MPEG LA not to know about it. But *if* the supposition (bandied about by several here including IIRC Trelane) were true that ffmpeg had been ignored because it was too ignorable or not a revenue generator or something, then Trelane had just poked a dragon (or at least a troll) with a stick. This is generally considered a bad idea, even if it turns out that the dragon knows who you are and doesn't want to eat you today.
gstreamer decoders Posted Feb 1, 2010 19:45 UTC (Mon) by rawler (guest, #60308) [Link]
Personally, my guess would be that ffmpeg may be too influential. Banning
ffmpeg for patent-reasons would be pretty much poking not the bear, but the bee-hive of pissed of techno-geeks everywhere.
As the mail states, there are intentional exceptions for low-volume (in
gstreamer decoders Posted Feb 1, 2010 14:38 UTC (Mon) by nye (guest, #51576) [Link]
>(apologies for sexist phrasing, but this particular odious characteristic
>is in my experience restricted to males. Generally young ones.)
I think this kind of comment is highly out of place on LWN.
gstreamer decoders Posted Feb 4, 2010 1:12 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
It's from personal experience with myself. We were all young and stupid
once.
gstreamer decoders Posted Jan 31, 2010 20:41 UTC (Sun) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link]
"Anyway, you could have said that you don't care about free software right at the start. That would have saved us going back and forth about the finer points."
Nice troll. You almost had me going there.
gstreamer decoders Posted Jan 31, 2010 23:23 UTC (Sun) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link]
Thanks for the compliment, but I will have to insist:
If you thank Fluendo for providing you with "legally licensed" proprietary software, then you should build a throne for Google, which is providing you with "legally licensed" free software, don't you think?
Do you also thank Adobe for "legally licensed" Flash and Microsoft for "legally licensed" Windows 7? They all come with an MPEG LA license..
gstreamer decoders Posted Jan 31, 2010 23:36 UTC (Sun) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link]
If they work for Linux, providing a Free stack for multimedia and multimedia streaming and DVR functionality, then yes. Yes, I do. Your "throne" exaggeration is a bit extreme, though. I thank Google for their work on Chrome, although whether their patent license extends to you if you build Chrome and ffmpeg is murky at best (see also Fluendo and their MP3 plugin proprietary vs BSD-licensed). That's why I asked MPEG-LA for more information.
I also buy Codeweavers Crossover Office because they help Wine to a great degree.
"Do you also thank Adobe for "legally licensed" Flash"
I thank them for having a Linux plugin. I don't like Flash over Free, patent-free standards, though. (See also the "I produce Theora content") I'm doing my part to keep us viable now (Fluendo and their plugin work) and in the future (Fluendo's Free software, Theora/Xiph, and my FSF membership).
and Microsoft for "legally licensed" Windows 7?"
If I ran Windows, I'd thank them for licensing the codec.
You do nobody any favors when your patent protection plan is the equivalent of burying your head in the sand, putting your fingers in your ears and saying "There ain't no patent threat" three times fast. You counter it by helping establish Free, patent-free standards and filling the gap until we get to that point.
gstreamer decoders Posted Feb 1, 2010 14:26 UTC (Mon) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link]
Fluendo is not a free software company. They stopped significant contributions to gstreamer years ago. They are a common and garden-variety proprietary software shop now. Why you would thank them for offering products for sale to you is beyond me, but hey...
gstreamer decoders Posted Feb 1, 2010 15:34 UTC (Mon) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link]
"Fluendo is not a free software company. They stopped significant contributions to gstreamer years ago. They are a common and garden-variety proprietary software shop now."
From poking around in wikipedia and talking to GStreamer people, this isn't entirely accurate, although it's not entirely inaccurate either. My information was apparently out of date.
"Why you would thank them for offering products for sale to you is beyond me, but hey..."
Had you stopped prior to this sentence, this would have been a helpful and informative post. This sentence took that work and overshadowed it by jerkishness.
gstreamer decoders Posted Feb 2, 2010 15:41 UTC (Tue) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link]
> > "Fluendo is not a free software company. They stopped significant
> > contributions to gstreamer years ago. They are a common and > > garden-variety proprietary software shop now."
> From poking around in wikipedia and talking to GStreamer people, this
I got the information from Edward Hervey who works on gstreamer (and for Collabora, the company that funds gstreamer development nowadays) and hangs around in the #ffmpeg-devel IRC channel. Just look at the gstreamer commit graph of thomasvs, who works for Fluendo and commented in this discussion before:
http://www.ohloh.net/accounts/thomasvs
> > Why you would thank them for offering products for sale to you is
> Had you stopped prior to this sentence, this would have been a helpful
You're not exactly a role model either, but the remark was dead serious. I never felt like thanking a supermarket for offering me goods for sale. Why would you thank any company for offering you their goods?
gstreamer decoders Posted Feb 2, 2010 16:35 UTC (Tue) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link]
I got my information from several sources on #gstreamer and #fluendo. (note also that their gstreamer contributions are only a portion of what they do, s.a. flumotion, their streaming and recording several FOSS events, etc.)
"Why would you thank any company for offering you their goods?"
If it was the only place or one of the few places to get it legally, I'd be pretty grateful for it. Perhaps that's what you're not comprehending. Maybe we're just different people and see things differently, eh?
Fluendo vs. FFmpeg Posted Feb 3, 2010 1:40 UTC (Wed) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link]
Your continuous claim that FFmpeg is illegal is insulting. Your lack of appreciation for software freedom is sad.
|
|||||||||||||